May, 2014

Teacher unions are allied internationally with various militant groups who cheerlead local efforts. BC and Ontario teacher unions consider themselves campaigners for centrally directed egalitarianism. This is what I wrote yesterday about our BC crew.

Global Eyes On Our Teacher Strike?

Is the whole world watching our teacher strike? Well, probably not. However, you can be sure a certain sector of international culture is deeply interested. I have seen our four-decades-long education struggles prominent on global socialist sites. Our teacher union, the BCTF (BC Teachers’ Federation), is seen as a vanguard in “social justice unionism”. Reports from the battle lines are sent out regularly.

Feedback is that “Lots of folks all over the world [are] taking notes from BCTF.”

Fabian socialism is alive and well — into their 130th year — motto: Educate, Agitate, Organize. Their method — incrementalism, gradualism. Their byword mouthed by their mascot, the tortoise — When I Strike, I Strike Hard.

A report just received by Rank & File (Canadian left labor website)— motto: Agitate, Educate, Organize — so similar to Fabianism — is here: The ABCs of the BC Teachers’ Fight http://rankandfile.ca/?p=2560

Even if an arbitrator were to resolve this tumultuous faceoff between union and government there is no guarantee that our toxic “status quo” would ever end — harmful and tiresome for students, parents and taxpayers. No, it would just continue for another 40 years!

What we do need is legislation to change the ball game. This experiment in monopoly mass education is the lifeblood for such obsolete behaviors as we witness today. Activists find fertile ground for their progressive political mission.

We do need to increase the opportunities for choices and alternatives in education. Already BC has quasi-charters — independent schools which operate with partial government funding and which must abide by contracts outside the rules of school boards and union agreements and which promise not to foster sedition.

We do need to move to a system where fully funded public charters are available, as in Alberta. And, we should seriously explore the promising new funding model for personalized education via Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) as found in Arizona.

So far — the Ontario provincial election with just three weeks to go — has seen little said about the dismal education picture. The teacher unions and public service unions seem to have a lot at stake in this election and they do have a lot more to say than the major parties about their hopes and expectations in their industry: public education. They are pouring considerable resources ($, spin & volunteers) into this critical election.

School boards in the public school sector also have a lot at stake, and are planning a provincial EDUCATION DAY, May 27, when they plan to quiz candidates in all 107 ridings about education issues. The OPSBA says they are “non-partisan” yet they are limiting participation to only 4 major parties (Lib, NDP, PC, Gr) – BUT there are more parties running, especially the Libertarian Party which aims to have candidates for all ridings. Will the OPSBA be fair?http://www.opsba.org/index.php?q=advocacy_and_action/EducationDay

This election provides a cosmological opportunity to talk about Education Savings Accounts (ESA), a fantastic new way to get responsive education — responsive to the needs of students rather than industry dependents. 40 years ago home education became the rare opening for parents to take charge of their children’s’ education. Now, choice mechanisms have evolved to the stage where the one-best-choice approach is undoubtedly the ESA. The idea needs push from long-suffering citizens, from those fed up with “producer capture”, from those fatigued and frustrated with “pent-up demand”, appalled with political coercion, sick of put-downs, stone-walling, dumbing-down, excuses, excuses, excuses, etc., etc., etc.

Ontario Election — June 12, 2014

Five Major Political Parties Running for your Vote — Liberal, NDP, Progressive Conservative, Green and Libertarian

107 Constituencies — The FIVE main parties expect to have candidates in each riding.

[Pasi Sahlberg is no "one-trick-pony" ! Even though many educators point to Finland as an example of good practice in education it's not just priority funding that does it. Pasi insists that considerable accountability is built into their Finnish system. Also, they abide by basic principles of good management, that is, policy is NOT determined by teachers or unions who still push for "worker control of the workplace". I'm trying to spread the message about the comprehensive approach and this is another comment I made to a local newspaper http://www.surreyleader.com/news/258965971.html ]

Pasi Sahlberg On Education Policy Decision-making

Pasi says teachers should not dominate education affairs. Sure, they should be involved, but if there were 10 at a decision-making table about policy or broad issues and principles in education, only one should be a teacher.

Who is Pasi Sahlberg? He is the spokesman, the good will ambassador, for the Finnish way in public education. Finland achieves superior results in international education scores and thus attracts considerable attention — including education tourism when people hope to gain insights into good practice.

It’s not just administrations that are interested; Pasi is also the darling of teacher unions because he supports the mantra of “more funding”.

Whether it’s about teacher training, or special education or class size or funding formulas, the name of Pasi Sahlberg is frequently invoked as an authority. Well, here is one more area where Pasi should be listened to — policy making.

This insight came out as a result of recent attention about a teenager visiting Finland on a Ministry contract to study teacher training. It happens that while Anjali Vyas was in Finland to meet with Pasi another researcher was also there at the same time. It is from this researcher’s blog that we gain the profound observation from Pasi, quoted below:

“[Janet English on a Fulbright project] “I said to Pasi, "This disconnect (between policy and practice) is why I keep saying, 'Why aren’t the teachers at the decision-making table?' because if we don't have the teacher voice at the policy-making table we'll continue having the same problems we’re having now!"

He acknowledged my words, looked straight at me and replied, "There is a saying … that 'war is too important to be decided by the military people' and it's the same with education. I think education is too important to be decided by teachers — and this has nothing to do with undervaluing teachers' expertise — but their view is very different to education. I think teachers should have a say to these issues – exactly what you said _ how to decide the teaching, how you set the standards for your own kids, how you organize your school work — this should be left to the teachers. I think too often we intervene in the wrong areas of education — we try to control what each and every teacher is doing in the classroom. We should leave those things to the professionals. But the broad issues, the principles of education should be based on a more balanced view and that's why I would only have one practitioner in the room and divide this voice more equally to those who are the key stakeholders, (including) parents and the community members — not necessarily just those working or teaching in the school."

[English replied], "I've seen that community-driven, cooperative approach in Finland and it works. I agree with you."

What are the “Big Ideas” for BC’s Personalized Education Plan? I haven’t seen them articulated nor have I yet to see the public invited to provide their views and input. Sure, there is a lot of activity and gurus popping in and out but if public education is to be modernized, shouldn’t BC public and parents generally be asked?

When the last go-round on this topic of environmental education was discussed in the Tyee (January) I wrote a mini-essay called “Indigenizing The Curriculum?”. I mentioned that in Australia three over-arching themes were to be integrated into the New Curriculum, but with a new government now in place, there is a comprehensive

Review now going on. Correspondingly, there is also a separate Review of Teacher Training.

Those three Australian overarching themes were indigenous history/culture, global engagement and sustainability. Other 21st Century Learning “transformations” projects being discussed in other Western nations (US, NZ, UK, Cdn) include “social justice” as a cross-curricular theme.

Now, these themes would be fine if they met with general agreement in local communities and not something devised by educators or vested lobbies alone or in secret.

I’m sure most people involved in education conversations these days are familiar with the Finnish “miracle” and with Pasi Sahlberg as the guru instrumental in producing literature and presentations on their successful approaches. I know he is the darling of teacher unions who often sponsor his trips because he strongly supports the funding, and more funding, mantra.

But, we learn an important policy principle that Pasi endorses — a principle which is widely endorsed in public policy matters — and one which might not sit well with activist teachers. By the way, this was a huge benefit I gained from reading materials relating to the $16,000 (now $19,075) contract obtained by a teenager to travel to Finland to study teacher training. This insight is completely unrelated to this case.

In the materials it was seen that another researcher was in Finland at the same time, a Fulbright Project, and a lengthy blog report was prepared. Here in quotes are the Pasi comments I find applicable to us in BC or anywhere else when public education policies pertain:

“Janet English “I said to Pasi, "This disconnect (between policy and practice) is why I keep saying, 'Why aren’t the teachers at the decision-making table?' because if we don't have the teacher voice at the policy-making table we'll continue having the same

problems we’re having now!"

He acknowledged my words, looked straight at me and replied, "There is a saying … that 'war is too important to be decided by the military people' and it's the same with education. I think education is too important to be decided by teachers – and this has nothing to do with undervaluing teachers' expertise – but their view is very different to

education. I think teachers should have a say to these issues – exactly what you said – how to decide the teaching, how you set the standards for your own kids, how you organize your school work – this should be left to the teachers. I think too often we intervene in the wrong areas of education – we try to control what each and every teacher is doing in the classroom. We should leave those things to the professionals. But the broad issues, the principles of education should be based on a more

balanced view and that's why I would only have one practitioner in the room and

divide this voice more equally to those who are the key stakeholders,

(including) parents and the community members – not necessarily just those

working or teaching in the school."

I [English] replied, "I've seen that community-driven, cooperative approach in Finland and it works. I agree with you."

Most of the Western World has been infected with force-fed education changes called “transformations”.

In Canada we have Personalized Learning, Inspired Education, Achieving Excellence — all with the same template as Common Core and same narratives but with different titles. Internationally, and within UN agencies, these are seen as 21st Century Learning projects preparing students for career, college and citizenship.

For many people uneasy about these 21st Century presumptuous education projects the most disturbing thing is the methods used to bring about compliance. Implementation is seen as coercive and stealthy. These transformations have not been justified by any demonstrated need nor grounded in evidence-based research. Many of the approaches are experimental with no protocols assuring safeguards to students. These methods to extract agreement are objectionable and not in keeping with democratic principles.

Since many public teachers are guaranteed “autonomy” in selection of materials for lessons they can select from a wide range of materials that may very well be ideologically slanted. Or the teacher might be thus inclined anyway and search for compatible material. This is happening regarding the 21st Century Competency Goal of “critical thinking” which we might agree is desirable and needed. However, just simply checking for texts on Amazon without even going to textbook publishers one would be alarmed to find books on Critical Theory and Critical Pedagogy, many of which convey pure Marxist doctrine teaching social justice and who is oppressed and needs “emancipation”.

I think our politicians are beginning to see how education of the young needs more information and oversight regarding this public service. Australia is already well into two reviews — into The National Curriculum and into Teacher Training. England has just announced a Review into Initial Teacher Training.